1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!

AT&T Wireless in play to be sold

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Robert M., Jan 16, 2004.

  1. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    In alt.cellular.verizon Robert M. <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote:
    >
    > Now Veldlouse is an AT&T apologist???
    >
    > LOL


    If calling you a dimwit or a dipshit brands me as an AT&T apologist ...
    then I guess I am. Why on Earth I would apologize for AT&T is beyond
    me.

    - --

    Thomas T. Veldhouse


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

    iD8DBQFAHpLH1p0e3NXsrtERAq17AJ40d775hHW2D+S7Cay2LGYazQd26ACgp1Rk
    kpvXzIbB1ZXnqlQ6DyyJ3n4=
    =SiLh
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



    › See More: AT&T Wireless in play to be sold
  2. XFF

    XFF Guest

    "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message news:<eVtTb.9190$uM2.857@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

    > When Cingular and AT&T overlayed 1900 Mhz GSM onto
    > 800 Mhz TDMA, they started by simply adding 1900 Mhz GSM at the same towers
    > they were already using, knowing full well that this would result in lousdy
    > GSM coverage. Now they're adding more towers to compensate, as well as
    > adding 800 Mhz GSM.


    Where did Cingular overlay 1900 MHz GSM onto 800 MHz TDMA? I can't
    think of a single market where this is true. They either

    * overlayed 1900 MHz GSM onto 1900 MHz TDMA (example Cleveland,
    Tampa...), or
    * overlayed 800 MHz GSM onto 800 MHz TDMA/AMPS (example Dallas,
    Miami...), or
    * have been 1900 MHz all along (example Los Angeles, Charlotte).
  3. Joseph

    Joseph Guest

    On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 15:20:42 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
    <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

    >And that's the problem. When Cingular and AT&T overlayed 1900 Mhz GSM onto
    >800 Mhz TDMA, they started by simply adding 1900 Mhz GSM at the same towers
    >they were already using, knowing full well that this would result in lousdy
    >GSM coverage. Now they're adding more towers to compensate, as well as
    >adding 800 Mhz GSM.


    It still does not negate that 1900 Mhz systems when set up properly
    with enough base stations can perform *just* as well as 800 Mhz
    systems. Just because it's a higher frequency does not mean that you
    can't have service that's just as good as that of 800 Mhz. Again it's
    how well placed base stations are. Whether an operator sets up a
    system properly or not is another matter entirely.

    In Europe where they have a similar difference between 900 and 1800
    Mhz it all depends on how the operator has developed their system.
    Some have coverage just as good as 900 operators while others with
    1800 do not have as good coverage as the 900 operators.

    AT&T does not hold 800 Mhz licenses everywhere they operate.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    remove NO from .NOcom to reply
  4. skidflap

    skidflap Guest

    correctamundo.
    i live in amador county and use vzw because i travel alot and my town is
    still on ANALOG!
    seems our local carrier that vzw has a roaming agreement with wont upgrade
    the tower here.
    does mogadishu somalia have digital?
    haha

    --
    Skidflap
    refusing to bottompost anymore!
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
    deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    Benjamin Franklin


    "Yazzan Gable" <gabley@titans.org> wrote in message
    news:gabley-C8D3D4.14021220012004@news.supernews.com...
    >
    > California. The sixth largest economy in the world. And whose cell
    > infrastructure is worse than many third world countries...
    >
    >
    > In article <298d9cbf.0401192326.2c132a2d@posting.google.com>,
    > xff@austin.rr.com (XFF) wrote:
    >
    > > "What's In A Name?" <notmyemail@knology.net> wrote in message
    > > news:<100p5cc4afisff0@corp.supernews.com>...
    > >
    > > > They overlap all through the SE on TDMA. Are you talking about GSM

    only?
    > >
    > > I'm talking about cellular market areas (CMAs) where both ATTWS and
    > > Cingular are licensed to provide service, regardless of technology.
    > > The 18 markets listed below is exactly where such overlap occurs. If
    > > you believe that ATTWS and Cingular overlap in other cellular markets
    > > please name them specifically.
    > >
  5. Yazzan Gable

    Yazzan Gable Guest

    Yup. The Mog has GSM.

    http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_so.shtml




    In article <101ua9m9q6f5737@corp.supernews.com>,
    "skidflap" <skidflap@dieseldummies.org> wrote:

    > correctamundo.
    > i live in amador county and use vzw because i travel alot and my town is
    > still on ANALOG!
    > seems our local carrier that vzw has a roaming agreement with wont upgrade
    > the tower here.
    > does mogadishu somalia have digital?
    > haha
    >
    > --
    > Skidflap
    > refusing to bottompost anymore!
    > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
    > deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    > Benjamin Franklin
    >
    >
    > "Yazzan Gable" <gabley@titans.org> wrote in message
    > news:gabley-C8D3D4.14021220012004@news.supernews.com...
    > >
    > > California. The sixth largest economy in the world. And whose cell
    > > infrastructure is worse than many third world countries...
    > >
  6. XFF wrote:

    > That is true only in rural areas where cell placement is
    > coverage-restrained. In urban areas cell placement is typically
    > capacity-restrained and cellular and PCS carriers are forced to use
    > roughly the same cell spacing, depending on available spectrum and
    > users served.


    The problems seem to be most pronounced in suburban areas, where there can
    still be placement that is coverage restrained, especially since suburban
    towns tend to be very picky about cell placement. I.e., three years after I
    dumped Cingular because of bay area coverage, including terrible coverage at
    my house, I saw in the local weekly paper that Cingular had applied to
    install a cell in a small shopping center close to my house. One colleague
    at work, had Sprint PCS for something like seven years with no coverage at
    her house, located near me in suburban Silicon Valley. In her case, Cingular
    did work though.

    But rural areas are also a concern when selecting a carrier. You want your
    phone to work on roads between urban areas, and as far into the boonies as
    possible. No carrier will cover 100% of everywhere, but that does not mean
    that they are all equal in coverage. The Joan Nervous ploy of lumping all
    carriers together as equal in coverage, because they all provide less than
    100%, doesn't work!

    In short, while you can often get coverage with one of the 1900 Mhz-only
    providers, it's hit or miss. With the 800 Mhz providers you rarely will not
    have coverage. It's not entirely due to the 800 Mhz versus 1900 Mhz, it's
    also because the 800 Mhz carriers have been around a lot longer, and
    typically have much more developed infrastructure (Cingular used to use this
    excuse when you call to cancel service!). Sprint and Cingular are especially
    bad in the San Francisco Bay Area.
  7. "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:298d9cbf.0402021254.7928452f@posting.google.com...

    > Where did Cingular overlay 1900 MHz GSM onto 800 MHz TDMA?


    In all of their 800 Mhz TDMA markets where they also owned 1900 Mhz
    spectrum.
  8. XFF

    XFF Guest

    "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message news:<7QGTb.9740$F23.2031@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

    > "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:298d9cbf.0402021254.7928452f@posting.google.com...
    >
    > > Where did Cingular overlay 1900 MHz GSM onto 800 MHz TDMA?

    >
    > In all of their 800 Mhz TDMA markets where they also owned 1900 Mhz
    > spectrum.


    And WHICH markets would that be? Can you name at least one?
  9. xff@austin.rr.com (XFF) wrote in
    news:298d9cbf.0402021254.7928452f@posting.google.com:

    > "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    > news:<eVtTb.9190$uM2.857@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    >
    >> When Cingular and AT&T overlayed 1900 Mhz GSM onto
    >> 800 Mhz TDMA, they started by simply adding 1900 Mhz GSM at the

    same
    >> towers they were already using, knowing full well that this would
    >> result in lousdy GSM coverage. Now they're adding more towers to
    >> compensate, as well as adding 800 Mhz GSM.

    >
    > Where did Cingular overlay 1900 MHz GSM onto 800 MHz TDMA? I can't
    > think of a single market where this is true. They either
    >
    > * overlayed 1900 MHz GSM onto 1900 MHz TDMA (example Cleveland,
    > Tampa...), or
    > * overlayed 800 MHz GSM onto 800 MHz TDMA/AMPS (example Dallas,
    > Miami...), or
    > * have been 1900 MHz all along (example Los Angeles, Charlotte).


    If true (and I have no reason to doubt it), why is Cingular/AT&T GSM
    network quality so bad?

    Doug
  10. On 2 Feb 2004 12:54:56 -0800, xff@austin.rr.com (XFF) wrote:

    >Where did Cingular overlay 1900 MHz GSM onto 800 MHz TDMA? I can't
    >think of a single market where this is true. They either
    >
    >* overlayed 1900 MHz GSM onto 1900 MHz TDMA (example Cleveland,
    > Tampa...), or
    >* overlayed 800 MHz GSM onto 800 MHz TDMA/AMPS (example Dallas,
    > Miami...), or
    >* have been 1900 MHz all along (example Los Angeles, Charlotte).


    In the Philadelphia area, Cingular has both 850 and 1900 spectrum, and
    has since way before the recent NextWave deal came along. Cingular
    started off with only TDMA at 850 (former Comcast/SBC CellOne) and now
    has GSM at both 850 and 1900; I don't know if there's also TDMA at
    1900 there. Philly is rather odd in that for awhile, voice channels
    were on 850 and control channels were on 1900, which significantly
    degraded service; after a large number of complaints about poor
    service, Cingular did go back and move GSM control channels back to
    850.

    Unlike Cingular, AT&T has 10 MHz if not more 1900 spectrum in the vast
    majority of areas where they also have 850, and so far, AFAIK, AT&T
    has deployed GSM only at 1900. This explains some small variations in
    AT&T GSM vs. TDMA coverage such as AT&T having GSM but no TDMA in the
    Florida Keys since AT&T's 850 license was given to Commnet Wireless
    (AT&T found it cheaper to just have TDMA customers roam on Cingular
    and Commnet than to build out TDMA at 1900), and AT&T having TDMA but
    no GSM in Sarasota since AT&T has no 1900 licenses there.

    The problem that AT&T has had in many areas and Cingular has had in
    Philly is that they've simply added 1900 radios/antennas to existing
    850 sites and haven't properly accounted for 1900's different
    propgation characteristics by increasing power on 1900 radios or
    adding "fill-in" 1900 sites; this has had the effect of making the
    1900 coverage have many more holes than 850 coverage does in the same
    area.

    Verizon Wireless has both 850 and 1900 licenses in a large number of
    markets as well, but so far, with a small handful of exceptions, VZW
    has only what I like to call "license save" coverage (weak, limited,
    "barred" coverage turned up only to meet the FCC's buildout deadlines)
    running on 1900 in markets where they have both 850 and 1900. One
    unusual situation: In the Macon GA area, VZW had 1900 running and
    actually handling customer traffic (I recall complaining about the
    *very* poor 1900 coverage in a.c.verizon) for just under a year, then
    shifted customer traffic to 850 and made the 1900 more or less
    "license save" coverage after VZW bought Price's systems in the
    Southeast and added CDMA 850 to Price's TDMA 850. (Yes, the TDMA *is*
    still up, believe it or not.)

    -SC
    --
    Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/
    ....
    "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might
    be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune
  11. Robert M.

    Robert M. Guest

    In article <Xns9485E4D584E60dougsorensencomcastn@216.148.227.77>,
    Doug Sorensen <doug.NOSPAMsorensen@comcast.net> wrote:

    >
    > If true (and I have no reason to doubt it), why is Cingular/AT&T GSM
    > network quality so bad?


    Being oversold because of the extra data traffic on it is one reason.
  12. John S.

    John S. Guest

    >why is Cingular/AT&T GSM
    >network quality so bad?


    I can't speak to Cingular but my experience with AT&T's GSM is that where they
    have GSM service it is great quality.

    The "where" issue is simply that it is growing and doesn't cover what they now
    have in TDMA. But it is getting much better!

    --
    John S.
    e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
  13. XFF

    XFF Guest

    Doug Sorensen <doug.NOSPAMsorensen@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<Xns9485E4D584E60dougsorensencomcastn@216.148.227.77>...

    > If true (and I have no reason to doubt it), why is Cingular/AT&T GSM
    > network quality so bad?


    I don't think that's a correct assumption (as a blanket statement
    anyways). I think Cingular GSM network quality is bad mostly in PCS
    markets, especially CA/WA/ID and the Carolinas. The vast majority of
    Cingular markets are cellular markets where the existing TDMA/AMPS
    network has been overlaid with GSM. Network quality in these markets
    is not bad at all, in fact in many cases it's the best network in
    those markets.

    AT&T on the other hand has deployed GSM only on PCS and therefore
    suffers from inferior coverage and robustness throughout.
  14. XFF

    XFF Guest

    Stanley Cline <sc1-news@roamer1.org> wrote in message news:<6rk320d53576050akk68peh03cfkilgnmu@4ax.com>...

    > In the Philadelphia area, Cingular has both 850 and 1900 spectrum, and
    > has since way before the recent NextWave deal came along. Cingular
    > started off with only TDMA at 850 (former Comcast/SBC CellOne) and now
    > has GSM at both 850 and 1900;


    Nice tidbit of information about the Philly market. I didn't know
    Cingular was running GSM 1900 in Philly. Anyway, Philly is a rather
    rare exception in that regard. Steven M. Scharf made it sound like it
    was regular practice at Cingular to overlay GSM 1900 onto TDMA/AMPS
    850 (the way AT&T is doing) and I just pointed out that the vast
    majority of Cingular markets have either had GSM 850 overlaid onto
    TDMA/AMPS 850 (and therefore retain the same general coverage area) or
    were PCS markets all along (in which case the poor coverage is not an
    effect of overlaying GSM).
  15. XFF

    XFF Guest

    sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree (John S.) wrote in message news:<20040204145045.04604.00001391@mb-m10.aol.com>...

    > xff@austin.rr.com (XFF) wrote in message news:<298d9cbf.0402030837.67d5da60@posting.google.com>...
    >
    > > "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message news:<7QGTb.9740$F23.2031@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    > >
    > > > "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:298d9cbf.0402021254.7928452f@posting.google.com...
    > > >
    > > > > Where did Cingular overlay 1900 MHz GSM onto 800 MHz TDMA?
    > > >
    > > > In all of their 800 Mhz TDMA markets where they also owned 1900 Mhz
    > > > spectrum.

    > >
    > > And WHICH markets would that be? Can you name at least one?

    >
    > Chicago


    Nope, Cingular has no PCS licenses in Cook county.

    > Dallas,


    Nope, sorry, no PCS licenses for Cingular in Dallas county either.

    > Boston,


    Ah, no, check your facts again, no PCS licenses for Cingular in Suffolk county.

    > ...... etc


    Afraid not...
  16. In article <298d9cbf.0402052045.3a0614f7@posting.google.com>,
    XFF <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote:
    >Stanley Cline <sc1-news@roamer1.org> wrote in message
    >news:<6rk320d53576050akk68peh03cfkilgnmu@4ax.com>...
    >
    >> In the Philadelphia area, Cingular has both 850 and 1900 spectrum, and
    >> has since way before the recent NextWave deal came along. Cingular
    >> started off with only TDMA at 850 (former Comcast/SBC CellOne) and now
    >> has GSM at both 850 and 1900;

    >
    >Nice tidbit of information about the Philly market. I didn't know
    >Cingular was running GSM 1900 in Philly. Anyway, Philly is a rather
    >rare exception in that regard. Steven M. Scharf made it sound like it
    >was regular practice at Cingular to overlay GSM 1900 onto TDMA/AMPS
    >850 (the way AT&T is doing) and I just pointed out that the vast
    >majority of Cingular markets have either had GSM 850 overlaid onto
    >TDMA/AMPS 850 (and therefore retain the same general coverage area) or
    >were PCS markets all along (in which case the poor coverage is not an
    >effect of overlaying GSM).


    In areas where "TDMA" providers are overlaying GSM on IS-136 in the
    cellular band, is the band statically partitioned into GSM and IS-136
    channels? Or is it dynamic based on instantaneous load? What happens
    on CDMA/AMPS overlays, is that some number of AMPS channels are taken
    out of service and used instead as a CDMA "carrier". Thus, AMPS users
    are more likely to have calls fail due to the lack of a voice channel.
    Does this happen to IS-136 users where a GSM overlay is in effect?
  17. Jer

    Jer Guest

    hoch@exemplary.invalid wrote:

    > In article <298d9cbf.0402052045.3a0614f7@posting.google.com>,
    > XFF <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Stanley Cline <sc1-news@roamer1.org> wrote in message
    >>news:<6rk320d53576050akk68peh03cfkilgnmu@4ax.com>...
    >>
    >>
    >>>In the Philadelphia area, Cingular has both 850 and 1900 spectrum, and
    >>>has since way before the recent NextWave deal came along. Cingular
    >>>started off with only TDMA at 850 (former Comcast/SBC CellOne) and now
    >>>has GSM at both 850 and 1900;

    >>
    >>Nice tidbit of information about the Philly market. I didn't know
    >>Cingular was running GSM 1900 in Philly. Anyway, Philly is a rather
    >>rare exception in that regard. Steven M. Scharf made it sound like it
    >>was regular practice at Cingular to overlay GSM 1900 onto TDMA/AMPS
    >>850 (the way AT&T is doing) and I just pointed out that the vast
    >>majority of Cingular markets have either had GSM 850 overlaid onto
    >>TDMA/AMPS 850 (and therefore retain the same general coverage area) or
    >>were PCS markets all along (in which case the poor coverage is not an
    >>effect of overlaying GSM).

    >
    >
    > In areas where "TDMA" providers are overlaying GSM on IS-136 in the
    > cellular band, is the band statically partitioned into GSM and IS-136
    > channels?


    Yup

    > Or is it dynamic based on instantaneous load?


    Nope

    > What happens
    > on CDMA/AMPS overlays, is that some number of AMPS channels are taken
    > out of service and used instead as a CDMA "carrier".


    Yup

    > Thus, AMPS users
    > are more likely to have calls fail due to the lack of a voice channel.


    Yup

    > Does this happen to IS-136 users where a GSM overlay is in effect?


    Yup

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
    "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
    what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
  18. XFF

    XFF Guest

    sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree (John S.) wrote in message news:<20040206125214.22792.00001512@mb-m18.aol.com>...

    > >AT&T on the other hand has deployed GSM only on PCS and therefore
    > >suffers from inferior coverage and robustness throughout.

    >
    > Why would you say that? You obviously don't know what you are talking about. So
    > why make false statements.
    >
    > AT&T is and has been installing GSM 800MHz in all their cellular markets for
    > some time now.


    What's your source for this assertion? ATTWS's coverage maps do not
    support your claim.
  19. David S

    David S Guest

    On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:50:07 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> chose to add
    this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >hoch@exemplary.invalid wrote:
    >
    >> In areas where "TDMA" providers are overlaying GSM on IS-136 in the
    >> cellular band, is the band statically partitioned into GSM and IS-136
    >> channels?

    >
    >Yup
    >
    >> Or is it dynamic based on instantaneous load?

    >
    >Nope
    >
    >> What happens
    >> on CDMA/AMPS overlays, is that some number of AMPS channels are taken
    >> out of service and used instead as a CDMA "carrier".

    >
    >Yup
    >
    >> Thus, AMPS users
    >> are more likely to have calls fail due to the lack of a voice channel.

    >
    >Yup
    >
    >> Does this happen to IS-136 users where a GSM overlay is in effect?

    >
    >Yup


    Geez, you didn't have to write a novel about it.
  20. "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:298d9cbf.0402070730.6c3d1f23@posting.google.com...

    > > AT&T is and has been installing GSM 800MHz in all their cellular markets

    for
    > > some time now.

    >
    > What's your source for this assertion? ATTWS's coverage maps do not
    > support your claim.


    At least in California, AT&T has been adding 800 Mhz GSM to their 1900 Mhz
    GSM and is deactivating overlapping TDMA coverage (with a resultant increase
    in dead spots, but theoretically still at 100% coverage for TDMA).

    Cingular covets the sweet 800 Mhz spectrum owned by AT&T in places like NYC
    and California. A well managed CinguATT could have very good coverage.

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?